What I am strongly opposed to is a new member payment NOT tied to a specific group, that would be required to even access any groups that are grandfathered, free Basic and/or already sponsored and

J, Yes. I recognize that Mark will almost certainly follow through with his original Pricing Changes, butI'm opposed to it alone (without adding Samuel's proposal or other mitigations). I didn't

I know I'm a little late to this proposal but I'm wondering what problems are being solved by changing the payment strategy. If the problem is disk space cost then charge more for space. If basic

Shal is diametrically opposed to Mark’s original idea, in which only owners pay, in that case. Also please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said things “must” be one way or the other. My

As a mod I had permission yesterday, there is nothing in the activity log to indicate any changes, and the owner has not changed any settings.

Jeremy, Ah. I missed the implication that the ability of a group to pay for additional free slots, and even the base-level free slots, would be taken away under Drew's proposal. Agreed. I'm

That is the biggest downside to Samuel's proposal IMO. If member fees are tied to specific groups it creates all kinds of problems, most of which probably even aren't predictable. But the predictable

It really doesn't look suspicious to me. And i'm suspicious lol. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be

Ok, maybe go look at them. I could see about 30 in the new groups search that are definitely from one person. They might have more. Hopefully Mark has something in place that prevents people from

The mod has to have member-page permissions. Are you sure the mod you’re testing with has that? -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up

I think most (in fact, all) brand-new groups start out with 1 member. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only

Hi, Sometime yesterday, when a moderator clicks on a members name in the membership listing, pending members or past members, they are directed to a blank page. There is no information on

Samuel, what's to stop group owners from creating dozens of basic groups before Jan 18 with the hope of having "X" number for free slots per group and duplicating their archives in each group?

Marv Waschke: I agree as long as the members limit is lifted or a more affordable pricing introduced. My group is in the range of 2100 members, at the moment using 29 MB total storage out of 1GB. I

I don't see anything in Samuel's proposal that would change your current way of doing things. You are grandfathered in as a legacy Premium Group. That fact would not change unless you decided to

Whatever Mark decides, the pricing should be simple to administer. Today it is one billing per group. Increasing the number of billings will exponentially increase workload! KISS MKR

It's pointless to sit here and debate whose assumptions are correct. One of three things is true: Mark will implement his pricing changes on the 18th, or he won't, or he's still considering input. I'd

That would include Mark's, on asking for our input. Why would one do that unless the plan/proposal is merely a draft? -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy

Allow me to clarify the $2.50 (I have done so in the original mail, too). From Mark's new pricing structure I deduced that he would like to earn $0.55 per member per year. I assumed that most people

I wasn't going to say anything to my groups until this one person wrote to them giving out wrong information. You see not everyone understands what is being written and discussed. Many read what they